Why didn't BMW make OLED tail lights that will fit the F30/F80?

[IK6SPEED]

After spending the money to develop the OLED taillights for the F82 M4 GTS and later putting them on the M4 CS as well, can anyone offer a reasonable explanation why BMW did not offer them for the F80 M3 CS? It certainly could not have been that hard to fabricate a F80 lens at that point.

[NickyC]

My guess is they were only designed in the first place to differentiate/make special the uber priced M4 GTS, then when the CS versions came out they wanted to differentiate those as well but didn't want to spend the money/time making a version simply for the M3 CS.

In my opinion, the M3 CS got short changed BIG TIME over the M4 version due to not having the OLEDs. I'm in the camp of not caring a single bit about the different versions of headlights these cars have nor the LCI/Blackline/whatever taillights. But the OLEDs are a different story, they are absolutely amazing and the M3 CS got screwed.

Of course, the biggest screw job of all lands on the M4 for not getting those glorious M3 hips.

[CanAutM3]

Since the F80 chassis uses different taillight cluster than the F82 chassis, it would have required further development to adapt them to the F80 chassis, which I guess BMW figured there wasn't a business case for.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Since the F80 chassis uses different taillight cluster than the F82 chassis, it would have required further development to adapt them to the F80 chassis, which I guess BMW figured there wasn't a business case for.

Yes, but just like the lens, the internals could easily be moved slightly as all the heavy lifting was done.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Since the F80 chassis uses different taillight cluster than the F82 chassis, it would have required further development to adapt them to the F80 chassis, which I guess BMW figured there wasn't a business case for.

Exactly....considering that the F80 was nearing the end of its production run.

[TideMD]

Originally Posted by NickyC

...

Of course, the biggest screw job of all lands on the M4 for not getting those glorious M3 hips.

Meh. Hips are overrated.

[NickyC]

Originally Posted by TideMD

Meh. Hips are overrated.

Hah, true but I have to find at least one fault with the looks of the M4.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by NickyC

Hah, true but I have to find at least one fault with the looks of the M4.

Lol! It was a reach, but I get'cha.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Exactly....considering that the F80 was nearing the end of its production run.

Yet BMW came out with Blackline Taillights for F30/F80 and F32/F82 in the last 18 months of their production.

[Keca10]

The reason is most likely cost to develop, time to develop and capacity. Only BMW knows the answer.

For OLED, the production is experimental. Same as laser headlight. It’s unproven technology and most manufacturers are choosing not to adopt yet. Main concerns being around lifetime in harsh conditions.

That means equipment for the OLED itself is on pilot scale and can handle only small batches. GTS was a short cycle product, so they utilized some capacity on the M4CS, but couldn’t make enough for the M3CS (I am making assumptions, but I don’t see them buying any more capacity than was needed for the GTS production). It also wasn’t worth the development cost. Costs were already sunk and funded by the “high-price” GTS project for the M4 design.

If I had to guess the biggest factor, it was development cost. Lighting engineers time is better spent making new lights on the G platform.

Also M3CS was decided kinda late and there wouldn’t be enough time to develop a new part. A lot of testing goes into this, especially if it’s new tech AND a safety feature.

TL DR: there was no business case.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by Keca10

The reason is most likely cost to develop, time to develop and capacity. Only BMW knows the answer.

For OLED, the production is experimental. Same as laser headlight. It’s unproven technology and most manufacturers are choosing not to adopt yet. Main concerns being around lifetime in harsh conditions.

That means equipment for the OLED itself is on pilot scale and can handle only small batches. GTS was a short cycle product, so they utilized some capacity on the M4CS, but couldn’t make enough for the M3CS (I am making assumptions, but I don’t see them buying any more capacity than was needed for the GTS production). It also wasn’t worth the development cost. Costs were already sunk and funded by the “high-price” GTS project for the M4 design.

If I had to guess the biggest factor, it was development cost. Lighting engineers time is better spent making new lights on the G platform.

Also M3CS was decided kinda late and there wouldn’t be enough time to develop a new part. A lot of testing goes into this, especially if it’s new tech AND a safety feature.

TL DR: there was no business case.

It wasn't a design from scratch project as the development costs were paid for with the M4 platform.

It was simple adjustments on a CAD file to fit the M3 dimensions.

[khanyam4]

I'm going to call and email bmw on why the M3 CS didn't get the good organic stuff.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by khanyam4

I'm going to call and email bmw on why the M3 CS didn't get the good organic stuff.

lol.

If I felt someone high enough in the BMW Structure in Germany would have legitimately answered that question, I would have started there instead of posting in a forum.

[Keca10]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

It wasn't a design from scratch project as the development costs were paid for with the M4 platform.

It was simple adjustments on a CAD file to fit the M3 dimensions.

The design part is cheap.

Testing takes money and time.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by Keca10

The design part is cheap.

Testing takes money and time.

Testing? For slightly moving the positions of some OLEDs in a F80 framework from a F82 frame?

lol

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

It wasn't a design from scratch project as the development costs were paid for with the M4 platform.

It was simple adjustments on a CAD file to fit the M3 dimensions.

Well maybe you can take your dissatisfaction up with BMWNA.

[allinon72]

It would have cost them a rounding error to develop these for the F80. It's easy to reach in the parts bin when you've already done all the heavy lifting on development of a tail light for a 120k+ M4 GTS, but no such model exists for the F80. BMW has a tendency to get lazy with this kind of stuff, so it didn't happen.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Well maybe you can take your dissatisfaction up with BMWNA.

BMWNA most likely doesn't know.

[Colinv6]

What amazes me more, is the fact that NO other models have got them yet, particularly the 7 series and X7 which sort of lend themselves to high end lighting tech.


Infact, since the GTS and the (proper) CS they’ve never been spoken of again.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Colinv6

What amazes me more, is the fact that NO other models have got them yet, particularly the 7 series and X7 which sort of lend themselves to high end lighting tech.


Infact, since the GTS and the (proper) CS they've never been spoken of again.

That's definitely a much more important question to me than why the M3 didn't get them.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

That's definitely a much more important question to me than why the M3 didn't get them.

I don't know the answer to that, but here is some speculation.

Since OLED technology was developed for the video display industry, its sustained use and development will be subject to trends in that sector. And currently, the new race for supremacy in video tech is toward so-called microLED.

Why? There are downsides to OLED technology. First, OLEDs are made with organic compounds which can break down over time. Secondly they’re expensive to fabricate and very limited in brightness when compared to non-organic LED. How limited? I'll just quote wikipedia:

"Unlike OLED, microLED is based on conventional gallium nitride (GaN) LED technology, which offers far higher total brightness than OLED produces, as much as 30 times, as well as higher efficiency in terms of lux/W and thus lower power consumption than OLED."

Also notice the part about power consumption. Although it is perhaps minor in the overall picture, especially as we move toward battery powered vehicles, every little bit contributed toward energy efficiency is a win.

At this point a natural question would be, if regular old LEDs are better, why was OLED ever even on the table for automotive applications? After all, a tail light isn't a tiny pixel (or sub-pixel) like you'd find on a video screen, so the need to wait for the technology to allow us to shrink standard LEDs down to microscopic sizes was never a factor for external vehicle lighting. And that's absolutely true, but the design of the individual lighting elements in an OLED tail light such as the ones found on the M4 GTS would not have been possible with traditional LED technology. This is because OLEDs can be created as surface lights, whereas LEDs are point light sources. However, it should be possible to create a microLED array that is essentially equivalent to those OLED elements. In fact, miniLEDs might even work too - those are another up-and-coming technology for cheaply manufacturing "small" LEDs. Not as small as microLEDs, but maybe sufficiently small for creating both bright and impressive looking tail lights designs.

Just my thoughts.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

I don't know the answer to that, but here is some speculation.

Since OLED technology was developed for the video display industry, its sustained use and development will be subject to trends in that sector. And currently, the new race for supremacy in video tech is toward so-called microLED.

Why? There are downsides to OLED technology. First, OLEDs are made with organic compounds which can break down over time. Secondly they're expensive to fabricate and very limited in brightness when compared to non-organic LED. How limited? I'll just quote wikipedia:

"Unlike OLED, microLED is based on conventional gallium nitride (GaN) LED technology, which offers far higher total brightness than OLED produces, as much as 30 times, as well as higher efficiency in terms of lux/W and thus lower power consumption than OLED."

Also notice the part about power consumption. Although it is perhaps minor in the overall picture, especially as we move toward battery powered vehicles, every little bit contributed toward energy efficiency is a win.

At this point a natural question would be, if regular old LEDs are better, why was OLED ever even on the table for automotive applications? After all, a tail light isn't a tiny pixel (or sub-pixel) like you'd find on a video screen, so the need to wait for the technology to allow us to shrink standard LEDs down to microscopic sizes was never a factor for external vehicle lighting. And that's absolutely true, but the design of the individual lighting elements in an OLED tail light such as the ones found on the M4 GTS would not have been possible with traditional LED technology. This is because OLEDs can be created as surface lights, whereas LEDs are point light sources. However, it should be possible to create a microLED array that is essentially equivalent to those OLED elements. In fact, miniLEDs might even work too - those are another up-and-coming technology for cheaply manufacturing "small" LEDs. Not as small as microLEDs, but maybe sufficiently small for creating both bright and impressive looking tail lights designs.

Just my thoughts.

Originally Posted by Colinv6

What amazes me more, is the fact that NO other models have got them yet, particularly the 7 series and X7 which sort of lend themselves to high end lighting tech.

Thank you. Obviously we will never know the exact reasons BMW had, but these are the kind of thoughtful reasoning I hoped would be brought up that I had not thought of.